Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#171216 Mar 19, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You can call the single-generation demand ridiculous, but stating that macroevolution has been observed in the fossil record without it is incorrect since evolution defines itself as generational change thru time. To observe macroevolution in the fossil record requres observing, between endpoints, a full set of changes each step of which could be accomplished in one generation.
Generational change through time can be observed, as every generation of every species is slightly different than its parent generations. What you call macro evolution (specieation) does not occur in one generation, so the ToE would not predict such an outcome.

Another continuum is a calendar. Though it does not show us minute by minute advancement, it does show us day by day advancement. Kind of like evolution shows us a continuum in the fossil record.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#171217 Mar 19, 2014
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
And this says it all... For all the mountains and mountains of overwhelming evidence now we get "well fossils are rare so we don't have any generation to generation fossil record"... And furthermore for all the charts and brackets shown for nested hierarchies we see nothing of any one kind of species morphing into something completely different... It's bullshit... Enough said...
We don't see any of one species "morphing" into something completely different in one generation. That's not part of the ToE, never was. Yet it can be observed that every generation of every species is slightly different than the previous one.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#171218 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
A nerve is required, with transmission of light signals to the brain.
Also, the brain would need to evolve behaviors to respond to the light.
A simple photosensitive spot would be of no survival advantage without these other integrated components.
The whole outer membrane would already be connected to the brain. Light sensitivity would follow the pathway already established by touch. And light sensitivity predates flatworms. It can be found in many bacteria, so the potential for sensing light would have already been present in the flatworm brain.

Leaves are light sensitive, without any apparent eye.
HTS

Williston, ND

#171219 Mar 19, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked how the eye could have evolved, well the article answers that by giving you the necessary evidence including the genetic evidence.
A designer wouldn't have needed millions of years.
Genetic homology is not "genetic evidence"
Genetic homology is perfectly consistent with intelligent design.
You have no proof that any of your "millions-of-years" time frames are valid.
Furthermore, you are introducing theology into the argument, imagining how a God would or would not have created eyes.

Why should I just accept your religion-based conjectures on faith?
Show me an observed example of any step in eye evolution.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#171220 Mar 19, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Ok ask yourself why eyes over a nose which is over a mouth.
Because the eyes can see what to eat, the nose can verify it's taSTY and the mouth can eat it.
You will find , my very young padawan ,, that this configuration .
is not only universal to mammals. But an evolutionary advantage to all creatures who share this method of predatory existence.
....or it is what very early life forms had to begin with. Basic characteristics tend to be conserved. There might be a better way, but you have to play with the cards you were dealt.
defender

Madison, TN

#171221 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
Take a look at the sloped forehead of the Russian boxer Nicloai Valujev.
It his skull was found in the fossil record, he would be labeled a "missing link".

http://deepthoughts123.wordpress.com/2012/07/...
Lol.. Good point...

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#171222 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need a paper. Eyes are irreducibly complex. That is a self evidence fact. It's up to you to provide a plausible pathway of you think a microbe could evolve into a worm.
And yet the fossil record shows that microbes existed long before worms. How do you account for that?

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#171223 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic homology is not "genetic evidence"
Genetic homology is essential for evolution but not for a designer.
HTS wrote:
Genetic homology is perfectly consistent with intelligent design.
A very slow designer who doesn't like to make large changes.
HTS wrote:
You have no proof that any of your "millions-of-years" time frames are valid.
You're joking right?
HTS wrote:
Furthermore, you are introducing theology into the argument, imagining how a God would or would not have created eyes.
Why should I just accept your religion-based conjectures on faith?
I didn't say he wouldn't have created eyes by small changes over millions of years just that he wouldn't need to.
HTS wrote:
Show me an observed example of any step in eye evolution.
You want scientists to recreate something that took millions of years in just a few?
HTS

Williston, ND

#171224 Mar 19, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole outer membrane would already be connected to the brain. Light sensitivity would follow the pathway already established by touch. And light sensitivity predates flatworms. It can be found in many bacteria, so the potential for sensing light would have already been present in the flatworm brain.
Leaves are light sensitive, without any apparent eye.
That's ridiculously simplistic. The nerve pathway "already established by touch" goes to a different part of the brain than the optic nerve. Bacteria don't have a brain or peripheral nerves. All theories of eye evolution that I've read start with a multicellular organism who suddenly develops a photosensitive spot in its integumentary system. You cannot realistically extend your proposed pathway all the way to photosensitive single cell life. Light sensitivity of bacteria cannot be explained by any proposed continuum with an image forming eye. There are no "photosensitive" cells in a single called organism.
I cannot accept your imaginative, special pleading arguments.
HTS

Williston, ND

#171225 Mar 19, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet the fossil record shows that microbes existed long before worms. How do you account for that?
Predictably, you change the subject when you're backed into a corner. Virtually every argument that I've posed is ultimately defended by appeals to the fossil record, which indicates that you cannot scientifically defend any of the precepts of evolution.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#171226 Mar 19, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no evidence for evolution. I have over 100 different categories of evidence for creation. How does this not stack up?
It doesn't stack up very well at all against the peer reviewed scientific evidence for evolution.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#171227 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic homology is not "genetic evidence"
Genetic homology is perfectly consistent with intelligent design.
You have no proof that any of your "millions-of-years" time frames are valid.
Furthermore, you are introducing theology into the argument, imagining how a God would or would not have created eyes.
Why should I just accept your religion-based conjectures on faith?
Show me an observed example of any step in eye evolution.
But it is you who is imagining how a God would or would not have created eyes. Science just shows what happened, without inventing any reason why it happened.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#171228 Mar 19, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>

You want scientists to recreate something that took millions of years in just a few?
How about actually demonstrating that such a transformation is possible?
I again scoff at your "millions-of-years" declarations. They are not scientifically-based. You have no evidence that any fossils on this planet are over a few thousand years. Fossils, by defnition, CANNOT be directly dated. All you have is wishful thinking propped up by special pleading arguments.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#171229 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That's ridiculously simplistic. The nerve pathway "already established by touch" goes to a different part of the brain than the optic nerve. Bacteria don't have a brain or peripheral nerves. All theories of eye evolution that I've read start with a multicellular organism who suddenly develops a photosensitive spot in its integumentary system. You cannot realistically extend your proposed pathway all the way to photosensitive single cell life. Light sensitivity of bacteria cannot be explained by any proposed continuum with an image forming eye. There are no "photosensitive" cells in a single called organism.
I cannot accept your imaginative, special pleading arguments.
Light sensitivity does not need a brain. It IS found in bacteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_pr...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#171230 Mar 19, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
But it is you who is imagining how a God would or would not have created eyes. Science just shows what happened, without inventing any reason why it happened.
You haven't "shown" anything. You have imagined that evolution created eyes.
You justify your position by imagining that a God would have conducted intelligent design in a different way. I have made no conjectures as to how a God would have created anything.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#171231 Mar 19, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't stack up very well at all against the peer reviewed scientific evidence for evolution.
There is no such thing as "peer-reviewed scientific evidence for evolution". Legitimate peer review requires that all research be skeptically evaluated by others who have no predetermined commitment to evolution. That sort of objectivity is virtually non-existent in articles published in favor of evolution.

I would challenge you to find a single "peer-reviewed" article that qualifies according to the above criteria.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#171232 Mar 19, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Light sensitivity does not need a brain. It IS found in bacteria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_pr...
There is no conceptual continuum between light sensitive bacteria and a worm with a functional photosensitive spot. All of your posts are simplisitic smokescreens.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#171233 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> There is no such thing as "peer-reviewed scientific evidence for evolution". Legitimate peer review requires that all research be skeptically evaluated by others who have no predetermined commitment to evolution. That sort of objectivity is virtually non-existent in articles published in favor of evolution.
I would challenge you to find a single "peer-reviewed" article that qualifies according to the above criteria.
And who determines who has or does not have a "predetermined commitment to evolution"? You?
Ted

Springfield, IL

#171234 Mar 19, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Refuted on network tv just 2 nights ago.
You are comical.
The Big Bang Theory or The Big Bang Fact? Ask 98% of humans on earth and they would tell you God is real. So, you need to decided..........

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#171235 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How about actually demonstrating that such a transformation is possible?
I again scoff at your "millions-of-years" declarations. They are not scientifically-based. You have no evidence that any fossils on this planet are over a few thousand years. Fossils, by defnition, CANNOT be directly dated. All you have is wishful thinking propped up by special pleading arguments.
Volcanic rock can be dated and so fossils found in such rocks or their ash, can be directly dated (unless you think fossils in volcanic rock were planted there later).

"Less than two percent of the earth's fossils are preserved in volcanic rock, but researchers have identified a new one: the skull of a rhino that perished in a volcanic eruption 9.2 million years ago."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 28 min dirtclod 168,930
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 hr Paul Porter1 141,831
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 9 hr Brian_G 6,217
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 hr ChristineM 19,788
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? Fri Paul Porter1 13
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Jul 2 Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Jul 2 Paul Porter1 561
More from around the web